Top

Gepubliceerd in:

2024 | OriginalPaper | Hoofdstuk

31. Disposable and reusable instruments in endoscopic surgery

Auteurs : Myrthe M. M. Eussen, BSc, Dr. Martine Moossdorff, MD, PhD, Prof. Dr. Nicole D. Bouvy, MD PhD

Gepubliceerd in: The Technical Principles of Endoscopic Surgery

Uitgeverij: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Abstract

Surgical instruments for endoscopic surgery can be reusable, in which case they need to be sterilized after use, or disposable, in which case they are discarded after a single use. Reusable instruments can save costs and have a lower environmental impact, while disposable instruments may optimize sterility and have practical advantages. In this chapter, an in depth review is provided on the advantages and drawbacks of reusable and disposable instruments.

vorige hoofdstuk Developing the planes and tissue manipulation

volgende hoofdstuk Future concepts of instrument design

Steiner M, Boler T, Obhai G, Hubacher D. Assessment of a disposable trocar for insertion of contraceptive implants. Contraception. 2010;81(2):140–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2009.08.006.CrossRefPubMed

Straetmans MJG. Disposable versus reusable instrumentarium bij laparoscopische cholecystectomie; een analyse van kosten en effecten in het Groene Hart Ziekenhuis te Gouda en het Academisch Ziekenhuis Maastricht. Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit; 2004.

Siu J, Hill A, MacCormick A. Systematic review of reusable versus disposable laparoscopic instruments: costs and safety. ANZ J Surg. 2016;87(1–2):28–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.13856.CrossRefPubMed

Kelty C, Super P, Stoddard C. The driving force in trocar insertion A comparison between disposable and reusable trocars. Surg Endosc. 2000;14(11):1045–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004640000224.CrossRefPubMed

Watrowski R, Kostov S, Alkatout I. Complications in laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery: definitions, classifications, incidence and risk factors – an up-to-date review. Videosurg Other Miniinv Tech. 2021;16(3):501–25. https://doi.org/10.5114/wiitm.2021.108800.CrossRef

Montero P, Robinson T, Weaver J, Stiegmann G. Insulation failure in laparoscopic instruments. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(2):462–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0601-5.CrossRefPubMed

Yung E, Gagner M, Pomp A, Dakin G, Milone L, Strain G. Cost comparison of reusable and single-use ultrasonic shears for laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2008;20(4):512–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-008-9723-4.CrossRefPubMed

Fengler T, Pahlke H, Kraas E. Sterile and economic instrumentation in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 1998;12(10):1275–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649900836.CrossRefPubMed

Fengler T, Pahlke H, Bisson S, Kraas E. The clinical suitability of laparoscopic instrumentation. A prospective clinical study of function and hygiene. Surg Endosc. 2000;14(4):388–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004640020064.

10.

Weissmann C, Enari M, Klöhn P, Rossi D, Flechsig E. Transmission of prions. J Infect Dis. 2002;186(s2):S157–65. https://doi.org/10.1086/344575.CrossRefPubMed

11.

López F, Ruiz-Tovar M, Almazán-Isla J, Alcalde-Cabero E, Calero M, De Pedro-Cuesta J. Risk of transmission of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease by surgical procedures: systematic reviews and quality of evidence. Eurosurveillance. 2017;22(43). https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.es.2017.22.43.16-00806.

12.

DesCôteaux J, Poulin E, Julien M, Guidoin R. Residual organic debris on processed surgical instruments. AORN J. 1995;62(1):23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-2092(06)63680-6.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Blake J, Trumpatori B, Mathews K, Griffith E. Carotid artery bursting pressure and seal time after multiple uses of a vessel sealing device. Vet Surg. 2017;46(4):501–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.12648.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Chivukula S, Lammers S, Wagner J. Assessing organic material on single-use vessel sealing devices: a comparative study of reprocessed and new LigaSure™ devices. Surg Endosc. 2020;35(8):4539–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07969-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Lopes C, Graziano K, Pinto T. Evaluation of single-use reprocessed laparoscopic instrument sterilization. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2011;19(2):370–7. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-11692011000200020.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Visrodia K, Haseeb A, Hanada Y, Pennington K, Clemens M, Pearce P, et al. Reprocessing of single-use endoscopic variceal band ligation devices: a pilot study. Endoscopy. 2017;49(12):1202–8. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-115004.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Quitzan J, Singh A, Beaufrere H, Valverde A, Lillie B, Salahshoor M, et al. Evaluation of the performance of an endoscopic 3‐mm electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing device intended for single use after multiple use‐and‐resterilization cycles. Veterinary Surg. 2020;49(S1). https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.13396.

18.

Colak T, Ersoz G, Akca T, Kanik A, Aydin S. Efficacy and safety of reuse of disposable laparoscopic instruments in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc. 2004;18(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-8112-x.

19.

Traverso L, Hargrave K. A prospective cost analysis of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg. 1995;169(5):503–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9610(99)80205-0.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Morrison J, Jacobs V. Replacement of expensive, disposable instruments with old-fashioned surgical techniques for improved cost-effectiveness in laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Soc Laparosc Robot Surg. 2004;8(2):201–6.

21.

Schaer G, Koechli O, Haller U. Single-use versus reusable laparoscopic surgical instruments: a comparative cost analysis. Am J Obstetr Gynecol. 1995;173(6):1812–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(95)90432-8.CrossRef

22.

Holloran-Schwartz M, Gavard J, Martin J, Blaskiewicz R, Yeung P. Single-use energy sources and operating room time for laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(1):72–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2015.08.881.

23.

Vasios N, Verroiotou M, Komninos G, Arapoglou S, Fragandreas G. Study of the cost of mainly reusable equipment for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Hell J Surg. 2013;85(2):101–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13126-013-0018-4.CrossRef

24.

Slater M, Booth M, Dehn T. Cost-effective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2009;91(8):670–2. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588409x12486167521154.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Adler S, Scherrer M, Rückauer K, Daschner F. Comparison of economic and environmental impacts between disposable and reusable instruments used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2004;19(2):268–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-003-9232-4.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Ransom S, McNeeley S, White C, Diamond M. A cost-effectiveness evaluation of laparoscopic disposable versus nondisposable infraumbilical cannulas. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1996;4(1):25–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1074-3804(96)80104-6.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Apelgren K, Blank M, Slomski C, Hadjis N. Reusable instruments are more cost-effective than disposable instruments for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 1994;8(1):32–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02909490.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Allen J, Polk H Jr. A study of added costs of laparoscopic cholecystectomy based on surgery preference cards. Am J Surg. 2002;68(5):474–6.CrossRef

29.

A European Green Deal. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_nl.

30.

Aubry T. The green new deal. Greenpeace. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/the-green-new-deal/.

31.

Thiel C, Woods N, Bilec M. Strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from laparoscopic surgery. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(S2):S158–64. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2018.304397.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Rizan C, Bhutta M. Environmental impact and life cycle financial cost of hybrid (reusable/single-use) instruments versus single-use equivalents in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08728-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Conrardy J, Hillanbrand M, Myers S, Nussbaum G. Reducing medical waste. AORN J. 2010;91(6):711–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2009.12.029.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Ibbotson S, Dettmer T, Kara S, Herrmann C. Eco-efficiency of disposable and reusable surgical instruments – a scissors case. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2013;18(5):1137–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0547-7.CrossRef

35.

MacNeill A, Lillywhite R, Brown C. The impact of surgery on global climate: a carbon footprinting study of operating theatres in three health systems. Lancet Planet Health. 2017;1(9):e381–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(17)30162-6.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Broeders IAMJ, Kalisingh SS. Handboek endoscopische chirurgie. In: De Hoog DENM, Straetmans MJG, Bouvy ND. Disposables of reusables bij endoscopische ingrepen (Chapter 11). Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum; 2009.

Titel: Disposable and reusable instruments in endoscopic surgery
Auteurs: Myrthe M. M. Eussen, BSc
Dr. Martine Moossdorff, MD, PhD
Prof. Dr. Nicole D. Bouvy, MD PhD
Uitgeverij: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Boek: The Technical Principles of Endoscopic Surgery
Print ISBN: 978-90-368-2904-5

Elektronisch ISBN: 978-90-368-2905-2

Copyright: 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-368-2905-2_31

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Registreer

Login

31. Disposable and reusable instruments in endoscopic surgery

Abstract

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Registreer

Login

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen